EU controversy over primate research continues with the publication of a
new paper accusing the European Commission of producing a 'deeply flawed and
biased' report

A paper released today in the journal Alternatives to Laboratory Animals
(ATLA) accuses the European Commission of producing a scientifically flawed
report on the use of nonhuman primates in research. The report is based on a
recent inquiry conducted by the Scientific Committee on Health and
Scientific Risks (SCHER), into the validity of primate research and the
alternative methods that could replace it. This inquiry was in part a
response to a written declaration signed by no fewer than 433 MEPs in 2007
calling on the Commission to bring forward proposals to replace primate use.

The paper, titled 'The SCHER Report on Non-Human Primate Research -
Biased and Deeply Flawed' exposes serious shortcomings in the SCHER inquiry
and subsequent report which strongly backed primate use and played down the
role and potential of alternatives. Drs Jarrod Bailey and Katy Taylor,
scientists at the BUAV, analysed this report in detail. The ATLA paper
demonstrates:

Neither SCHER nor its working group had the necessary expertise in
primate research or in alternative techniques. Most of the working group
members were animal researchers (but not primate researchers), and just one
member had (limited) expertise in alternatives to primate use.

SCHER presumed the validity of primate research, while ignoring
substantial peer-reviewed evidence submitted by the BUAV/European Coalition
to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE )and numerous other organisations casting
serious doubt on the efficacy of primate research. This covered such
important areas as AIDS, stroke, malaria and Parkinson's Disease. For
example: not one of the 85 or more candidate AIDS vaccines tested
successfully on primates has worked in patients; over 1,000 potential stroke
treatments have been tested in animal models but none of the 150 that have
progressed to human trials has proved successful.

The ATLA paper argues that the implications of such a flawed analysis are
extremely serious, both for animal welfare and for human health and safety.
In particular, because in revising the EU Directive on animal experiments,
which is currently being considered by the European Parliament, the EU is
basing its position to non-human primate research directly on the findings
of the SCHER inquiry.

BUAV's Scientific Coordinator, Dr Katy Taylor, said: 'The conduct of the
SCHER inquiry, and its published Opinion, should be of major and widespread
concern and should not be given any political, scientific or legislative
credibility.'

Scientific Consultant to the BUAV, Dr Jarrod Bailey, said: 'The SCHER
investigation was conducted by scientists poorly and inappropriately
qualified to do so, and the subsequent report in support of non-human
primate research was based on flimsy evidence and ignorance of the evidence
against.'

NotesThe European Coalition to End Animal Experiments (ECEAE)
is pursuing a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the Commission for
maladministration for failing to appoint suitable experts and the failure of
working group members to analyse properly whether experiments on primates
actually work.